SHRI KINGSHUK GHOSHAL,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-6(5), LUCKNOW

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Kinghshuk Ghoshal V. The Ito 6(5) E-402, Halwasiya Utsav Enclave Lucknow Opposite Hal, Faizabad Road Lucknow Tan/Pan:Affpg3258L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 26.12.2017, Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Lucknow-3 (Ld. Cit(A)) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 29.11.2012, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,05,233/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Noticed That The Assessee Was Earning Interest Income From Saving Bank Deposits & Fdrs & That The Assessee Had Claimed Exemption Of Rs.71,54,619/- Under Section 54 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’). During The

capital gain earned of Rs.71,54,619/- for purchase/construction of new house property or deposited the capital gain amount in specified

PANKAJ AGARWAL,KANPUR vs. JT.CIT CIRCLE-1(1)(1), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Pankaj Agarwal, 7/151, Ratan Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Majestic, Opp. Sony World, Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur-208002 Kanpur-208001 Pan:Abjfs4912R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma Sr Dr & Sh Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.04.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 21.08.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because The Cit (A) Has The Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Disallowance Of Rs.2,47,02,865/- On Account Of Loss In Trading In Derivatives Business Treating The Same As Capital Loss, As Against Assessee'S Claim Of Business Loss, To Be Set Off Against Other Business Income, Which Order Is Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law, The Disallowance Made By The Ao & Upheld Be Deleted. 2. Because On A Proper Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Also On The Interpretation Of The Provisions Of Sec 43(5), It Would Be Found The Loss Of Rs.2,47,02,865/- On Account Of Trading In Derivative Is Neither A Speculative Loss Nor A Capital Loss, The Same Should Ought To Be Set Off Against Other Business Income, The Cit (A) Has Erred, In Treating The Same As Short Term Capital Loss.

property and thereby a capital asset. There was transfer of capital asset when the transaction was squared by an opposite corresponding transaction and similarly when squaring up was on expiry of the contract, it should be treated as extinguishment of rights in capital asset as per section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. She pointed out that

SMT. SITA KHANDELWAL,BAREILLY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

house owned jointly with Smt. Savita Khandelwal for a sale consideration of Rs.2,06,96,000/- and the assessee’s share in the property was worked out at Rs.1,03,48,000/-. After claiming index cost of acquisition and index cost of improvement, net capital gain

SHILPA KHANDELWAL,BAREILLY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Shilpa Khandelwal V. The Dy. Cit-2 330, Kalibari Bareilly Bareilly (U.P) Tan/Pan:Arypk5700A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 27 02 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 04 2025 O R D E R

House Property and Other sources. The assessee filed her return of income for the year under consideration on 17.03.2016, declaring a total income of Rs.10,76,040/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS for the reason of suspicious sale transactions in shares and exempt Long Term Capital Gains

PANKAJ AGARWAL,KANPUR vs. THE AO SPECIAL RANGE,, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Pankaj Agarwal, 7/151, Ratan Vs. The Assessing Officer, Majestic, Opp. Sony World, Special Range, Kanpur- Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur-208002 208001 Pan: Abnpa4816E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 9.01.2024 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao, Special Range, Kanpur, Passed Under Section 143(3) On 26.09.2019. 2. It Is Seen From The Record That The Appeal Is Delayed By 2 Days. However, Since The Date Of Filing Is Preceded By Saturday & Sunday, Wherein The Offices Of The Itat Were Closed, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Treating The Loss Of Rs.42,17,895/- Being Loss On Account Of Trading In Derivatives As A Capital Loss As Against Business Loss Claimed By The Assessee, Which Finding Of The Ao Being Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law, The Addition Made Be Deleted.

house property, capital gains and also income from trading in derivatives. He filed a return of income on 17.10.2017 showing

AYYUB JAFRI,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

house was constructed within the prescribed period of three years from the date of sale of plots and therefore, the assessee was not required to keep the unutilized money in the capital gain scheme. It was, therefore, prayed that the addition may be dismissed. However, the ld. CIT(A) held that in the absence of documents, the claims

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

Housing Projects Ltd. ITA No.179/2011 HC of\nDelhi - Dt. of order 1.3.2012 343 ITR 329(Delhi)\nIn the present case, the findings recorded not gone into and has not given\nany by the Tribunal are correct as the CIT has reason for observing that\nthe order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous. The finding\nrecorded

DOLLY JINDAL,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-3(5), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Dolly Jindal V. The Income Tax Officer 3(5) 107, Beverly Park Apartment Lucknow New Hyderabad Lucknow Tan/Pan:Afmpj5089D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23 04 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25 04 2025 O R D E R

house for a consideration of Rs.50,00,000/- during the year under consideration, but no return of income had been filed by the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, in response to notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’), the assessee had furnished computation of income, copy of bank statement, capital account

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Capital Gain was computed amounting to Rs.68,98,817/- and claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act against the investment made in house property

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Capital Gain was computed amounting to Rs.68,98,817/- and claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act against the investment made in house property

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA U.P.

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Capital Gain was computed amounting to Rs.68,98,817/- and claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act against the investment made in house property

FIROJ AHMAD ,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-1(4), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2017-18 Firoz Ahmad Income Tax Officer-1(4) V. B-1174, Indira Nagar, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226016. Lucknow-226001. Pan:Adypa2072K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adj. Application Filed) Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 14 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 26 11 2024 O R D E R

property 2 stands confirmed. In summary, the addition of Rs.1,55,71,193/-, being Long-term capital gain, as per the assessment order is confirmed and all the Grounds are dismissed.” 6. It is transpired from the records that before the assessing authority, the assessee had claimed cost of improvement regarding construction of house

SAKET MURARKA,SITAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Saket Murarka V. The Income Tax Officer Prop. M/S Murarka Brothers Sitapur Jail Road Sitapur Tan/Pan:Aaypm4558P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 03 2025 O R D E R

house in Nirala Nagar, Lucknow on 27.08.2004 for a total consideration of Rs.14,00,000/- in which the assessee had half share, that the actual sale price of the property was Rs.48,00,000/- and not Rs.63,59,700/- and that there was no Long Term Capital Gain

KARUNESH KUMAR SHUKLA,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Capital gain when from the deeds it is clear that the share of sale consideration assessable in the hands of the assessee is Rs. 3,38,50,000/- (Total of Rs. 2,41,00,000.00 and Rs. 97,50,000.00). 3. Because without considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

KASHMIRI LAL,KANPUR vs. ITO WARD-2(2), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2013-14 Kashmiri Lal V. The Ito 126/33, Block Q Ward 2(2) Govind Nagar Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Asarpl8577C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adjournment Application) Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 08 2024 O R D E R

capital gains, which addition are liable to be deleted. 03. THAT the CIT(A)/NFAC has failed to consider that the Valuation Report submitted by the assessee is only assessee's partition i.e. 147.54 sq.mtr., whereas the CIT(A)/NFAC has treated the entire cost of constructions Rs.14,75,800/- which divided into 4 shares and allow 1/4th share Rs.3

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year:2014-15 Rakesh Kumar Gupta V. The Income Tax Officer House No.51, Kaharan Ward 2(3) Nawabganj, Bareilly (U.P) Bareilly Tan/Pan:Aaupg6815 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R

House No.51, Kaharan Ward 2(3) Nawabganj, Bareilly (U.P) Bareilly TAN/PAN:AAUPG6815 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None Respondent by: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date of hearing: 05 12 2024 Date of pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 26.06.2024, passed by the ld. Addl/JCIT

SHRI SUBODH AGARWAL,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

property. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee approached the ld. First Appellate Authority. However, the appeal before the ld. First Appellate Authority came to be dismissed. 4. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal, challenging the dismissal of its appeal by the ld. CIT(A) by raising the following grounds of appeal: 01. Because the CIT(A) has erred on facts

SHRI SUBODH AGARWAL,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

property. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee approached the ld. First Appellate Authority. However, the appeal before the ld. First Appellate Authority came to be dismissed. 4. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal, challenging the dismissal of its appeal by the ld. CIT(A) by raising the following grounds of appeal: 01. Because the CIT(A) has erred on facts

SHYAM SUNDER GUPTA,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

House Property and other source income. The business activities\ncarried out by the assessee remained identical as to those in several\npreceding year and were operated and controlled from the following\nplaces;\n(a) 74/02, Collectorganj. (Office)\n(b) J-9, Site-3, Panki Industrial Area, Kanpur (Godown)\nFollowing grounds have been raised:-\n1. That the assessment famed u/s.143